User talk:Bittergrey/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Comment removed

As discussed here, WLU is unwelcome on my talk page until he answers one simple question. He had boasted that he was "fucking around on some podunk little nonsense article". He was asked what article that was, and did not answer. I was patient with WLU's excessively verbose comments on my talk page even after he deleted my comment from his own with the note "or I can just delete this without reading it". In that deleted Feb 2011 post, I urged WLU not to spread his conflict with me onto other pages. He has since engaged in a year-long wikihounding effort across multiple articles. BitterGrey (talk) 16:04, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Moved from Talk page of Paraphilic infantilism

When WLU was at 3RR and in need of fourth reverts, 203.118.x.x's response times were 9 hrs and 3 hrs. This question to 203.118.x.x has gone unanswered for a month (seven hundred hours). While we are to assume good faith, 203.118.x.x appears only to edit when WLU was in an edit conflict and loosing, and then only during a specific window of time. While he has twice engaged in edit wars here, he has yet to make non-personal contributions to discussion. This pattern is not consistent with good faith editing. It is consistent with a meatpuppet, or the use of an IP by WLU while traveling.

I suspect that this comment will be shortly followed by another by WLU. WLU has yet to answer the simple question I asked to 203.118.x.x. His responses serve only to obscure the fact that 203.118.x.x has not respond at all. BitterGrey (talk) 13:34, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Multiple administrators at the SPI you started described your allegations of sock-puppeting as "fishing" and incorrect. Returning here to continue the allegations in another forum is just plain disruptive. I am going to hat this discussion. Please limit your comments on this talkpage to improvements to the article.--Slp1 (talk) 21:24, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, before Slp1 and other friends of WLU got involved, the archived conclusion of SPI was that they "Definitely were socks".

Slp1, where were you when WLU was edit warring to make personal comments about my sexuality[1][2][3]? Please be aware that "checks" (the word you used at SPI) is ambiguous, at least in US English. If you were exchanging and cashing checks with WLU as part of a financial relationship, you really shouldn't be intervening on his behalf at SPI and here.

Slp1, I'd like you to ask you to set aside your off-wiki friendship with WLU for a minute and carefully read both paragraphs of that first diff[4]. Three points are important: 1) WLU wrote "I agree that Freund & Blanchard don't use the term "infantilism"". He recently deleted a section from another article because it's source didn't use the term[5]. At the time, he was trying to equate "masochistic gynephile" with infantilism. However, F&B define a gynephile simply as one who loves women, and don't define masochistic gynephiles as anything other than masochists who are gynephilic. No other source uses "masochistic gynephile" as a term. F&B could have used the term "infantilism", already established in the DSM and in other sources, but chose not to. 2) WLU concedes the need to "temporarily WP:IAR|ignore the policy on synthesis". Since he shows no willingness to let others edit, the effect of this ignorance of policy is effectively permanent. Using F&B is in violation of policy. Whether its current use violates WP:SYNTH, WP:OR, or both is a moot debate - the violation should be removed in any case. 3) All of this is good and necessary because I'm a pervert. Is this really the kind of position that you, as an admin, want to enforce? BitterGrey (talk) 13:47, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Since you appear to insist on continuing this offtopic discussion, I've moved it here to your talkpage. BitterGrey, this really, really, really needs to stop. There are gross misrepresentations here and we are continuing well into disruption territory.

• As you well know, the admin who stated that WLU and the IP were socks withdrew the conclusion and apologized to WLU. He stated that he was mistaken and had been working too fast.[6][7][8] You should be glad that the mistake was corrected; blaming others for the correction seems to be WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour at its height.
• It is the height of bad faith and smearing to even suggest that from "WLU has occasionally asked me for copies of scholarly articles I have access to via my work, and has, as a result, trusted me with his real name. I also know where he lives and other details of his personal life. Checks indicate that these disclosures have been truthful" could infer that a financial relationship. I even self-disclose as a Canadian, for goodness sake, and we write it "cheques" here.
• Straw men arguments are also singularly inappropriate. As is bringing up again and again issues that have been solved. I don't see any accusation of you being a "pervert" in any of WLU's edits you list; he is clearly discussing the meat of the conflict with someone, you, who clearly states that you run website about paraphilic infantilism on your userpage, and on that website describe your experiences as one.[9]. Nevertheless, if your objection was to being called a paraphilic infantilist on Wikipedia (which isn't, to me, an insult or negative and shouldn't be to you or others either), then, as you know, he corrected his description when requested to do so by another admin.[10][11].
• No, I will not be looking at the content aspect of this dispute, for the simple reason that based on your past history with me and others, you will dismiss anything I say as being biased my "off-wiki friendship with WLU" (not that I have one). It is not worth the trouble, frankly.

As I said at the beginning, BG, these mischaracterizations, failure to assume good faith and other battleground behaviours, need to stop. They really do. Slp1 (talk) 17:51, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Slp1, you have now repeatedly become involved on WLU's behalf - including pulling for him at SPI. You are involved. You have taken sides. You are putting in "the trouble" for WLU, but not for me nor Wikipedia. I regret how you are using a prejudice about me as an excuse to not evaluate the position you are supporting. For discussion's sake, let's say that you took the time to see the conflict from both sides, and then changed sides, leaving WLU and joining me. Do you really think me so unreasonable that I would reject your agreement? Yet you believe that I "...will dismiss anything [you] say as being biased..." Were I to omit the possibility of your changing sides, you would consider it an accusation of prejudice: That you were so blindly loyal to WLu that nothing could convince you to change. You seem to have omitted the option of changing sides yourself, which might be a demonstration that you don't consider it a possibility.. or that is isn't a possibility.

In the hope that you will be open minded, I will continue.

Outside of Wikipedia, infantilism is a type of masochism or a separate paraphilia. This is how it is described by the DSM and a great many other reliable sources. This is how it is used on my website. That website is the only reason WLU had any interest in the first wave of pages he went to on his wikihounding campaign against me.

Due to the efforts of WLU, the DSM has been removed from the Wikipedia article, except for one tangential comment. It was replaced with two papers, Freund & Blanchard, and Cantor, Blanchard, and Barbaree. These are cited a dozen times in the one article. This also was due to WLU. F&B never used the term infantilism. (Had you read the dif I pointed you to, you would know that even WLU doesn't contest this.) While F&B never mention infantilism, CB&B claim that F&B claim that infantilism is a form of pedophilia. (This was reflected in WLU's version of the article from Aug 2011 to Dec 2011. When RSN demanded better support for the offensive fringe theory, WLU reversed the text. He chose to misrepresent the sources so that he could continue promoting them on Wikipedia.) No source outside of these four coworkers, also Canadians, supports this claim. No one else in academia seems to have even thought it worthy of mention in nearly two decades.

Slp1, when you and WLU call me an infantilist on Wikipedia, it is in this context. Maybe you don't realize this. Maybe you don't mean to call me a pedophile, but effectively that is what you are writing. These personal attacks must stop. If you or WLU have an argument that depends on making a comment about my sexuality, you shouldn't be making it. At best, these comments are irrelevant and personal. Within a conflict, they are clearly ad-hominem attacks. Comments about one's sexuality are inappropriate, even if made in ignorance.

Now please stop taking sides when you haven't explored both sides, and please stop making comments about my sexuality when you (at least per AGF) don't understand what those comments mean in this context. If WLU didn't want me commenting about his editting practices, he shouldn't have made (and fought to keep) comments about my sexuality. BitterGrey (talk) 05:32, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Interesting...

It seems that dc.dc.cox.net might actually be in Virginia[12].BitterGrey (talk) 05:25, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Note

Do not tell me what I need to do. I told you to stop posting in the section and take things to ANI if you so desired. The others have also moved on from WQA as it was closed. If you dislike the response you get at WQA then you can escalate things. WQA is not a place where administrative action is dolled out. Your thread of some time ago at FTN was also grossly inappropriate [13]. Do not conflate me pointing out the inappropriateness of a post with defending a specific editor. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:27, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I am curious about why you felt it necessary to manually archive the discussion. If you were certain that the thread was being ignored by "all but one," why not let it time out? Also, given that you are supporting the use of cracks about my sexuality as ad hominem attacks against me, what exactly in my FTN comment do you consider "grossly inappropriate"? Since you are censoring discussion - effectively acting as judge and jury - I think it reasonable to ask you for specifics. BitterGrey (talk) 05:44, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I felt it was necessary as the discussion was closed, and most of the participants have moved. You appear to be unwilling to move on to the correct venue. It is obvious that a complex dispute like this can't be adequately dealt with at WQA, and it isn't the purpose of WQA; WQA is to bring editors to an amicable agreement and deal with any misunderstandings etc; this is clearly not possible in this dispute. WQA isn't dispute resolution, and isn't there for administrator action.

Your comment at FTN from 7 months ago was inappropriate as it was focused on another editor not on the issues. Me pointing out inappropriate behaviour on a noticeboard is not the same as support; as far as I remember I didn't get involved and have no intention of editing in that topic area. I'm also judging this from the context because I did not remember your post at FTN until you provided the diff accusing me of being some sort of WLU compatriot (note the low interactions here: [14]). When editors start making bad faith assumptions about volunteers it is apparent that no amicable solution is going to be arrived at, at WQA. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:01, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

So you assumed that I would keep asking and asking the same question over and over, like WLU ([15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23]...)? No, I would have accepted the last word and if, in fact, no one cared, let it archive quietly. However, you edited based on an assumption of bad faith, so now you'll never know. It is a shame that I have to point out the importance of AGF to someone who acted as judge and jury at WQA. BitterGrey (talk) 02:08, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

WP Medicine talk page.

Labelling editors as part of a "gang" or "mob" is unacceptable. Carrying on an editor-behaviour dispute on the WP Medicine talk page is also unacceptable. You've been around long enough to know where the relevant forums are for such issues. My deletions of your posts were not "selective". I'd delete those from other editors too if they fail to respect our guidelines regarding personal attacks or what talk pages are for. Your dispute with WLU/DreamGuy will not be resolved by making further posts to WP:MED. Take it elsewhere. Colin°^Talk 08:05, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

The personal accusations made against me weren't deleted. My responses were deleted. That is selective. BitterGrey (talk) 02:03, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I can only reasonably delete the latest post, unless previous posts are extreme. Once someone replies, it is hard to fix. Think of my deletion as a revert. Colin°^Talk 07:04, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Behaviours...

I couldn't help but notice Colin's spelling of "behaviour." This is right after I tried to use IRWolfie's open residence in Ireland to try to get his objective opinion about ad hominem attacks. He seems to believe that it is OK for WLU and WAID to make cracks about my sexuality as part of ongoing ad hominem attacks. This wouldn't be a double standard if he also believed it was OK for any other editor to equally use any other detail as part of ad hominem attacks against anyone. His association with Ireland, clearly listed on his user page, was the first detail that was convenient for the example. (I never did get an answer on that, by the way.)

Now go to the archives, to the previous thread from my talk page[24] (skipping the one I started). Unsurprisingly, it is yet another of WLU's supporters claiming that WLU's ad hominem attacks about my sexuality are OK, but that it is not OK for me to comment about WLU's editing practices. According to his talk page, he is in Canada. That discussion also involved an IP supporting WLU from New Zealand, with some highly suspect editing practices to say the least.

One of the many, many edits that WLU reflexively reverted was my change from "behaviour" to "behavior" in an article that used the US English spelling. WLU uses the British spelling, as did the person who briefly but energetically supported him at the article. It would seem that a lot of editors taking WLU's side use the British spellings. What are the odds? BitterGrey (talk) 02:41, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Bittergrey, If you don't stop this now, I shall ask an admin to make you stop it. It is totally unacceptable for you to start speculating about who people are in real life and what connections they may have to each other. Just as it is unacceptable for you to claim there's a "mob" or "gang" against you. For the record, I have barely interacted with WLU in all our time on WP, don't know who he/she is and I have never come across IRWolfie prior to your talk page comments above. I have no interest in you either, other than as someone with WP:MED on my watchlist. You are completely wrong and I would like an apology for you claiming I'm connected to WLU's "gang". If I stumble upon any other posts from you speculating about me then I'll be going straight to the admins. I'm here to build an encyclopaedia (though these days, that's mainly pictures, not words). How about you try to focus on that aspect too rather than supposed mobs out to get you. Colin°^Talk 07:16, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I have asked you to not involve me in your disputes. I have now posted to ANI about these incidents Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Editor_consistently_making_bad_faith_assumptions. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:42, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

IRWolfie, would you mind listing the disputes I've involved you with? You could have simply ignored me at WQA, FTN, etc... You posted to my talk page, not visa versa. You also could have checked your own assumptions before making the ANI posting accusing me of bad-faith assumptions. Again, AGF is an important practice here.

Colin, IRWolfie already has gone to ANI. Please note that I didn't mention gangs or puppets in this discussion, just spelling. BitterGrey (talk) 14:15, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Note Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Bittergrey

Note that a request for comment on user conduct regarding you has been started. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 02:34, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Please don't shoot the messenger

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Arcandam (talk) 01:57, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

BLP accusations

As I said here, further claims that Cantor has a COI in the outcome of your RFC/U will result in a block under the BLP policy. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:01, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Would you care to suggest a rewording of my edit that would make the point without the BLP violation?BitterGrey (talk) 19:57, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

July 2012

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistent disruptive editing, as you did at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:04, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 18:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Old history...

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Bittergrey (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I believe the indef block, now two years old, was and is unnecessary. I've never been blocked before. Not even once. No priors. Excluding one act of WP:KETTLE, I haven't even been reported to AN3. The blocking admin gave no warning regarding disruptive editing, just an indef block. At ANI the reason he gave for the block was "BLP"[9]. This contradicts the reason given here ("disruptive editing"[10]). BLP@ANI was irrelevant: The "damaging" text was on ANI only because the LP put it there himself, along with additional copies from his supporters[11]. This suggests they were just crying "BLP". The blocking admin hasn't responded to recent messages, and is no longer an admin[12]. His most recent RFA was declined("...too disruptive."). Of course, all of that is old history now. It has been three years since I've been able to make meaningful edits to wikipedia. I've been blocked for two. BitterGrey (talk) 14:40, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Per my email discussions with Bittergrey, and the reactions this request has gotten, he has decided to retire as he does not feel he could return without the same conflicts recurring. I am unblocking him strictly to allow him to close up shop. — Daniel Case (talk) 21:04, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

If User:Bittergrey comes back, there should be editing restrictions in place to ensure that the problems reported in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Bittergrey don't recur. A complete topic ban from human sexuality is one option. Paraphilic infantilism is one of the articles from which he would be restricted, both from the article and the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 04:37, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

That RFC was exclusively one-sided, with even "my" response section being controlled by accusers. It never opened for uninvolved comments, and has been a festering poisoning of the well for the past two years. No doubt all who read it believe that I am the very embodiment of evil, unredeemable and unforgivable. As EdJohnston has made clear, there is an abundance of admins ready to punish any future mistep that I make, having read the one-sided RFC/U and thinking they know everything about me. However, no reasonable editor can claim any issues with my more recent edits - outside of the unblock request, there haven't been any. Why not simply unblock me and give me chance? BitterGrey (talk) 05:38, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Just to let any interested parties know that I will be away at a wedding this weekend and have thus put off making a decision until at least Monday, probably Tuesday. Daniel Case (talk) 15:26, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

"Give 'em enough rope" might be expedient here, especially since the block apparently didn't involve enough deliberation to have a consistent block reason. (BLP was again given as the actual reason[25], contradicting the reason on record.)

I've been using a similar rope test to see who was seeking to improve Wikipedia, and who was just attacking me. Diaper fetishism and paraphilic infantilism are often misused interchangeably. I developed one article while giving free reign over the other. The rubble and fallout left some wondering "huh?" The diaper fetishism article is what the paraphilic infantilism article would look like if I hadn't joined Wikipedia. (Well, worse actually, since all the English references in the former came from the latter article originally.) To be frank, I've invested a lot of time into wikipedia. None of the admins helped when I was being wikihounded, but there seems to be no shortage of admins ready to drive me away. My days of heavy involvement are over, but it would be nice to be able to fix a spelling error without puppetry. BitterGrey (talk) 13:52, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)